And what is it that you want to monitor? Most everything is unencrypted and freely readable by anybody with a sniffer or access to a router. If I want to know everything you do I can get a court warrant and attach a large hard drive to your ISP's gateway. I don't need anything from the protocols: the stream of IP packets is perfectly fine, thank you very much.
Well, the hard part in all this is the legal stuff. You have to get a court order and go through all that. Imagine if a new protocol came into use where that wasn't necessary. Say, something that could open up multiple connections in a single socket (like the bxxp one) and instead of needing to sniff on a router, there was a "secret" stream of data that went to some big government of corporate harddrive? That is my concern with these "new" protocols.
I believe the DMCA has "hurt" the fair use laws, but not destroyed them.
As for your case, that's true, but was this web site 'selling' mp3s? I mean they had banner ads, but does that count? If so, what if I use junkbuster to block them out, then does that mean I'm stealing from them? And if so, since they would be stealing in the first place, do two wrongs make a right?:)
My point is, the concepts dealt with in current laws have been blurred by the technical world. We are moving faster than the lawmaker could possibly move and they are struggling to link "old school" concepts to digital ones, and they are failing miserably.
Perhaps that is the idea. I imagine there is a big desire for this kind of thing in government and big corporations. Wouldn't pushing that kind of monitoring through under the guise of being a "new, faster, more modern" protocol be the perfect way to do it?
Not specifically in regards to this protocol, but I have a small reservation about dropping certain, well used protocols in favor of new ones.
When the Internet was being constructed by a few visionaries like Gore, there was little thought given to security, which is why we are still plagued with insecure protocols like http, (yes, I'm aware of https), telnet, ftp, pop3, etc. However, a blessing is that these protocols were not designed with privacy in mind one way or the other. Specifically, they were not designed to allow the powers that be (government, corporation, etc) to monitor and track activity on them. Let's face it, the internet is still by and large a pretty anonymous place. If I want to be paranoid, I have the ability to pretty much move about undetected.
Enter the 00s (as in year 2000), now the Internet has everyone's attention, and government (and corporations) are kicking themselves that they didn't approach Gore and have him build in monitoring into the protocols since they would LOVE to watch every little thing we do (companies want it because they would monitor customers for marketing reasons, governments want it because they could monitor citizens for 'security' reasons, kids want it because it tastes good, and parents like it because it's good for you).
Given this new era of "how can I get as much info as I possibly can on everyone", I'm always leary of new protocols and such, especially when they are designed to "replace" current ones. Perhaps my fears are completly unfounded in this case, but I think we should all be very watchful about anything 'new' protocol wise.
Hmmmmm. THAT is a valid point, but wouldn't RIAA be going after them just the same if they were a non-profit group? For that matter, does the law differentiate between non-profit free speach and profit free speach? I really don't know.
The problem is, unlike phone phreaking boxes, MP3's HAVE legit uses. I personally distribute all my music via MP3, and it's legal for me to do so. The correct course of action here would be to find which MP3's are illegal, and go after the SERVERS that host them.
It IS different than content in a popup window, if the content is housed on your server. There are two kinds of links, links to info hosted on an external site, and links to info hosted on your site. If you are hosting illegal info, then you should be busted. However, I don't believe you should be liable for links to external sites. Go after those external sites, not sites linking to them.
And how do you think you access freenet? All freenet is is a protocol that travels across (wait for it...) THE INTERNET. Were you under the impression that freenet is accessable without an ISP? Thats like saying FTP will replace the internet.
I share your views, but not your optimism. I'm afraid that, while the RIAA itself is helplesly trying to maintain the 'status quo', they also have a very powerfull ally who is also interested in maintaing the 'status quo'. I'm of course referring to the government.
Moving from paridigm to paradigm is never easy but, history shows that change is innevitable. however, change is also a long, difficult process. It might be that the 'powers that be' are finally powerful enough to halt progress. That would be in their best interest since they are profiting in today's world, and have no interest in advancing to the point where they are irrevelant.
You are going to generate plenty of flames for this one, mainly due to your percieved lack of knowledge regarding what this is about.
Allow me to explain, this case is not about the legality of hosting copyrighted files. If that were the case, all but the most hard core "information freedom" guys would be on the side of the RIAA here. Is IS illegal to freely distribute copyrighted mp3's there is no question about that. Sure some argue that copyright laws need to change, but that is irrevelant here.
The problem is, for whatever reason, the RIAA is not going after the person hosting the illegal content, they are going after someone who is linking to them. If they win, that opens up a door for EVERY search engine to be sued for allowing illegal mp3's, porn, etc. to be indexed in their sites. It also raises the question of how 'deep' a link can be and still be illegal. What if I link to a friend's homepage and he links to mp3's, am I liable?
Yes, MP3Board.com is linking to illegal content, but so is altavista.com, google.com, and infoseek.com. The ONLY difference is, the latter sites also link to other information, not just mp3's, but they are just as guilty.
ftp in most browsers sucks. but then I expect that.
I agree, but in Netscape 4.x is was usable. Sometimes when I'm downloading a program, I don't want to fire up an ftp client just to pull one file. Mozilla took a useful, simple interface and 'innovated' it into a horrible one.
Actually (and you would know this if you read it) the software they were focusing on is SUPPOSED to (I have my doubts) block certain packets on ANY port, based on content. (IE it claims to be able to identify a gnutella packet and kill it)
It DOES talk about programs designed to kill packets based on content. IE, even though gnutella can run on any port (rendering port blocking useless), this software is SUPPOSED to be able to identify a gnutella packet and kill it.
After reading the article, I'm not really concerned. It talks about bandwidth limiting that is im place on many campuses (which I have no problem with, napster should NOT be allowed to eat 98% bandwidth that all students pay for). It also talks about some new products that block packets based on content instead of port. This is interesting, but just like net nanny and co, I predict that this will not work perfect and people will be pissed when it starts killing legit packets.
As long as this kind of software is contained to the service provider, and the big backbones don't start trying to kill random packets, we don't have much to worry about. If your ISP starts killing your packets, change ISP's. I wouldn't think an ISP like that is going to stay in business very long anyway.
The last part of the article was about the sad joke of a program, Media Enforcer (remember that, Metallica fans?). The anonymous writer pretty much admits that it isn't effective since napster names aren't returned to it and gnutella ip's can be faked. Trust me on this one, file shareing software will evolve much faster than blocking software will, which side do you think has the best/brightest/most people on it's side?
Yes, Slackware wasn't as good as the latest distros are today, but it has come a long way since it was the only game in town and carved out it's own nitch.
I suggest you try it again, it has a packaging system, nice BSD style rc scripts and a nice 'no bull' install.
"And how can this be? For he is the..."
...Kwisatz Haderach
That was fun, give us another one:)
Re:Open Source is NOT the issue - its the IMAGE.
on
DIY Tiny Webserver
·
· Score: 2
Traditionally, you are right on. However, Linux will never win in the traditional marketplace. The expensive suit, bland, conformist, non threatening world will never accept anything that isn't backed by tons of money and meaningless marketing babble. The only way Linux will ever become more successful is the same way it got as far as it currently has; by changing the rules instead of playing by them. No longer is it true that a company who throws the most money at a project wins. Anything a company can create, we can eventually replicate, and make it better, more secure, and more stable. Times are changing, and that muct scare the living crap out of marketers.
"[There is] no question that an admission of making false statements to government officials and interfering with the FBI and the CIA is an impeachable offense."
Notice he said "interfering". He finds nothing wrong with illegaly getting hundred of FBI files on his opponants and critics.
I agree, I think people eating tasty animals is funny as well. Since both are satire, I think both should be allowed. However, you don't see Mcdonalds trying to stop peta. You DO see peta trying to stop anyone from satiring them.
Slashdot Mirror
And what is it that you want to monitor? Most everything is unencrypted and freely readable by anybody with a sniffer or access to a router. If I want to know everything you do I can get a court warrant and attach a large hard drive to your ISP's gateway. I don't need anything from the protocols: the stream of IP packets is perfectly fine, thank you very much.
Well, the hard part in all this is the legal stuff. You have to get a court order and go through all that. Imagine if a new protocol came into use where that wasn't necessary. Say, something that could open up multiple connections in a single socket (like the bxxp one) and instead of needing to sniff on a router, there was a "secret" stream of data that went to some big government of corporate harddrive? That is my concern with these "new" protocols.
Finkployd
I believe the DMCA has "hurt" the fair use laws, but not destroyed them.
:)
As for your case, that's true, but was this web site 'selling' mp3s? I mean they had banner ads, but does that count? If so, what if I use junkbuster to block them out, then does that mean I'm stealing from them? And if so, since they would be stealing in the first place, do two wrongs make a right?
My point is, the concepts dealt with in current laws have been blurred by the technical world. We are moving faster than the lawmaker could possibly move and they are struggling to link "old school" concepts to digital ones, and they are failing miserably.
Finkployd
Perhaps that is the idea. I imagine there is a big desire for this kind of thing in government and big corporations. Wouldn't pushing that kind of monitoring through under the guise of being a "new, faster, more modern" protocol be the perfect way to do it?
Finkployd
Not specifically in regards to this protocol, but I have a small reservation about dropping certain, well used protocols in favor of new ones.
When the Internet was being constructed by a few visionaries like Gore, there was little thought given to security, which is why we are still plagued with insecure protocols like http, (yes, I'm aware of https), telnet, ftp, pop3, etc. However, a blessing is that these protocols were not designed with privacy in mind one way or the other. Specifically, they were not designed to allow the powers that be (government, corporation, etc) to monitor and track activity on them. Let's face it, the internet is still by and large a pretty anonymous place. If I want to be paranoid, I have the ability to pretty much move about undetected.
Enter the 00s (as in year 2000), now the Internet has everyone's attention, and government (and corporations) are kicking themselves that they didn't approach Gore and have him build in monitoring into the protocols since they would LOVE to watch every little thing we do (companies want it because they would monitor customers for marketing reasons, governments want it because they could monitor citizens for 'security' reasons, kids want it because it tastes good, and parents like it because it's good for you).
Given this new era of "how can I get as much info as I possibly can on everyone", I'm always leary of new protocols and such, especially when they are designed to "replace" current ones. Perhaps my fears are completly unfounded in this case, but I think we should all be very watchful about anything 'new' protocol wise.
Finkployd
Hmmmmm. THAT is a valid point, but wouldn't RIAA be going after them just the same if they were a non-profit group? For that matter, does the law differentiate between non-profit free speach and profit free speach? I really don't know.
Finkployd
I've only seen that bug in Mozilla. Netscape 4.x doesn't do that, IIRC.
Finkployd
The problem is, unlike phone phreaking boxes, MP3's HAVE legit uses. I personally distribute all my music via MP3, and it's legal for me to do so. The correct course of action here would be to find which MP3's are illegal, and go after the SERVERS that host them.
Finkployd
It IS different than content in a popup window, if the content is housed on your server. There are two kinds of links, links to info hosted on an external site, and links to info hosted on your site. If you are hosting illegal info, then you should be busted. However, I don't believe you should be liable for links to external sites. Go after those external sites, not sites linking to them.
And how do you think you access freenet? All freenet is is a protocol that travels across (wait for it...) THE INTERNET. Were you under the impression that freenet is accessable without an ISP? Thats like saying FTP will replace the internet.
Finkployd
I share your views, but not your optimism. I'm afraid that, while the RIAA itself is helplesly trying to maintain the 'status quo', they also have a very powerfull ally who is also interested in maintaing the 'status quo'. I'm of course referring to the government.
Moving from paridigm to paradigm is never easy but, history shows that change is innevitable. however, change is also a long, difficult process. It might be that the 'powers that be' are finally powerful enough to halt progress. That would be in their best interest since they are profiting in today's world, and have no interest in advancing to the point where they are irrevelant.
Finkployd
For once, I hope the RIAA wins
You are going to generate plenty of flames for this one, mainly due to your percieved lack of knowledge regarding what this is about.
Allow me to explain, this case is not about the legality of hosting copyrighted files. If that were the case, all but the most hard core "information freedom" guys would be on the side of the RIAA here. Is IS illegal to freely distribute copyrighted mp3's there is no question about that. Sure some argue that copyright laws need to change, but that is irrevelant here.
The problem is, for whatever reason, the RIAA is not going after the person hosting the illegal content, they are going after someone who is linking to them. If they win, that opens up a door for EVERY search engine to be sued for allowing illegal mp3's, porn, etc. to be indexed in their sites. It also raises the question of how 'deep' a link can be and still be illegal. What if I link to a friend's homepage and he links to mp3's, am I liable?
Yes, MP3Board.com is linking to illegal content, but so is altavista.com, google.com, and infoseek.com. The ONLY difference is, the latter sites also link to other information, not just mp3's, but they are just as guilty.
Finkployd
ftp in most browsers sucks. but then I expect that.
I agree, but in Netscape 4.x is was usable. Sometimes when I'm downloading a program, I don't want to fire up an ftp client just to pull one file. Mozilla took a useful, simple interface and 'innovated' it into a horrible one.
Finkployd
I agree that FTP in IE sucks, but have you seen ftp in Mozilla? It sucks just as bad.
Finkployd
hmmmm. You might be right there.
Either way, I still believe file sharing tools will stay many steps ahead of anti-piracy tools.
finkployd
heh, just like cyberfucknutnanny is SUPPOSED to stop kids from seeing porn. LOL
:)
That is exactaly what I was thinking of
Finkployd
Actually (and you would know this if you read it) the software they were focusing on is SUPPOSED to (I have my doubts) block certain packets on ANY port, based on content. (IE it claims to be able to identify a gnutella packet and kill it)
Finkployd
It DOES talk about programs designed to kill packets based on content. IE, even though gnutella can run on any port (rendering port blocking useless), this software is SUPPOSED to be able to identify a gnutella packet and kill it.
Finkployd
After reading the article, I'm not really concerned. It talks about bandwidth limiting that is im place on many campuses (which I have no problem with, napster should NOT be allowed to eat 98% bandwidth that all students pay for). It also talks about some new products that block packets based on content instead of port. This is interesting, but just like net nanny and co, I predict that this will not work perfect and people will be pissed when it starts killing legit packets.
As long as this kind of software is contained to the service provider, and the big backbones don't start trying to kill random packets, we don't have much to worry about. If your ISP starts killing your packets, change ISP's. I wouldn't think an ISP like that is going to stay in business very long anyway.
The last part of the article was about the sad joke of a program, Media Enforcer (remember that, Metallica fans?). The anonymous writer pretty much admits that it isn't effective since napster names aren't returned to it and gnutella ip's can be faked. Trust me on this one, file shareing software will evolve much faster than blocking software will, which side do you think has the best/brightest/most people on it's side?
Finkployd
That would really throw me off, I've only read the first book :)
Finkployd
Yes, Slackware wasn't as good as the latest distros are today, but it has come a long way since it was the only game in town and carved out it's own nitch.
..."
:)
I suggest you try it again, it has a packaging system, nice BSD style rc scripts and a nice 'no bull' install.
"And how can this be? For he is the
...Kwisatz Haderach
That was fun, give us another one
Traditionally, you are right on. However, Linux will never win in the traditional marketplace. The expensive suit, bland, conformist, non threatening world will never accept anything that isn't backed by tons of money and meaningless marketing babble. The only way Linux will ever become more successful is the same way it got as far as it currently has; by changing the rules instead of playing by them. No longer is it true that a company who throws the most money at a project wins. Anything a company can create, we can eventually replicate, and make it better, more secure, and more stable.
Times are changing, and that muct scare the living crap out of marketers.
Finkployd
"[There is] no question that an admission of making false statements to government officials and interfering with the FBI and the CIA is an impeachable offense."
Notice he said "interfering". He finds nothing wrong with illegaly getting hundred of FBI files on his opponants and critics.
Finkployd
Wonder how much the oil cartels will pay for this one.
Finkployd
So I downloaded a file called cracked_vmware.zip?
You can't press charges on that, there is no law against clicking on a file name. If the file is fake, then I didn't download any pirated program.
Finkployd
Another Microsoft manager discovers Slashdot....
Finkployd
I think its fucking funny. FUCK MCMURDER!!!
I agree, I think people eating tasty animals is funny as well. Since both are satire, I think both should be allowed. However, you don't see Mcdonalds trying to stop peta. You DO see peta trying to stop anyone from satiring them.
Finkployd